Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 176 views

    Garza v. Coca Cola Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lucille Arianne
    1) The petitioner worked as an account specialist for Coca Cola Bottlers and was responsible for booking orders and collecting payments from customers. He was suspended and terminated for alleged misappropriation of funds. 2) The petitioner claimed his dismissal was illegal as he was not given proper notice and a hearing. The labor tribunals found in favor of the petitioner and ordered reinstatement or separation pay. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was no just cause for dismissal, as the petitioner continued working without issues and the customers testified payments were properly remitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Garza v. Coca Cola Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lucille Arianne
    176 views2 pages
    1) The petitioner worked as an account specialist for Coca Cola Bottlers and was responsible for booking orders and collecting payments from customers. He was suspended and terminated for alleged misappropriation of funds. 2) The petitioner claimed his dismissal was illegal as he was not given proper notice and a hearing. The labor tribunals found in favor of the petitioner and ordered reinstatement or separation pay. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was no just cause for dismissal, as the petitioner continued working without issues and the customers testified payments were properly remitted.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The petitioner worked as an account specialist for Coca Cola Bottlers and was responsible for booking orders and collecting payments from customers. He was suspended and terminated for alleged misappropriation of funds. 2) The petitioner claimed his dismissal was illegal as he was not given proper notice and a hearing. The labor tribunals found in favor of the petitioner and ordered reinstatement or separation pay. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was no just cause for dismissal, as the petitioner continued working without issues and the customers testified payments were properly remitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    176 views2 pages

    Garza v. Coca Cola Digest

    Uploaded by

    Lucille Arianne
    1) The petitioner worked as an account specialist for Coca Cola Bottlers and was responsible for booking orders and collecting payments from customers. He was suspended and terminated for alleged misappropriation of funds. 2) The petitioner claimed his dismissal was illegal as he was not given proper notice and a hearing. The labor tribunals found in favor of the petitioner and ordered reinstatement or separation pay. 3) The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation. However, the Supreme Court ruled there was no just cause for dismissal, as the petitioner continued working without issues and the customers testified payments were properly remitted.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Garza v.

    Coca Cola Bottlers

    Facts:

    Petitioner was a regular employee of Coke. Being an Accountant Specialist,


    his function is to book customers orders and collect on their account.
    Delivery of products is not included as it is done by an independent dealer
    contracted by Coke.
    Cokes company policy provides that Account Specialists/Salesmen are
    obliged to remit all cash sales and credit cash collections to the company
    office on the same day that payments are received in cash or check from
    customers, dealers and outlets. Thus, before allowing the Account
    Specialists/Salesmen to work the following day, the CCBPI Cashier shall first
    issue a clearance which is given to the company security guard stating
    whether they incurred shortages or have not remitted collections. If so, the
    Account Specialist/Salesman concerned is not allowed to leave the company
    premises unless his shortages are settled. Moreover, shortages are
    recovered against the monthly salary of the concerned employee.
    Petitioner received 2 memo directing him to explain shortages and
    unliquidated collections. Petitioner sought clarification as they do not specify
    the acts of misappropriation, but it was unheeded. He was served (in the
    hospital as his wife gave birth) with a 3rd memo stating that he is under
    preventive suspension and he should attend the formal investigation. He
    sought rescheduling but it was denied and notice of termination was issued.
    He sought review of financial records to appraise the basis of finding of
    misappropriation but it was likewise denied. There was attempt to reconcile
    but such did not materialized.
    LA: There is illegal dismissal; there was reinstatement, backwages, and atty
    fees. Alleged violation has no basis in Cokes RR and there was violation of
    notice and hearing.
    NLRC: Modify. Separation pay and not reinstatement as there was strained
    relationship.
    Nonetheless, petitioner continued working for Coke. In fact, he received a
    Certificate of Achievement award.
    CA: Reverse. Dismissal proper. Coke able to prove that petitioner was guilty
    of misappropriation for failure to remit collection (check) from Asanza.

    Issue: W/N there is just cause for petitioners dismissal

    Ruling: NO!

    With such a policy, no transaction is left unnoticed, and erring


    salesmen are instantaneously made to account for their shortages before
    they can even leave the premises and come back to work the following day.
    Within the context of said policy, it can be said that since petitioner
    continued to work for CCBPI until June 2004, this should necessarily mean
    that he was clear of daily cash and check accountabilities, including those
    transactions covered by the charges against him. If not, the company
    cashier would not have issued the required clearance and petitioner would
    have been required to settle these shortages as soon as they were incurred.

    As to the finding of CA of embezzlement, there was nothing to


    embezzle or remit because no payment thereon has as yet been made by
    the customer Asanza. Without receiving anything from her, there was
    nothing for petitioner to embezzle or remit it was impossible for him to
    embezzle/not remit the other customers cash and check payments, not only
    because of the existence of the abovementioned policy, but likewise due to
    the sworn avowals of these customers that all their check payments have
    been issued in CCBPIs name and have been duly debited from their
    accounts. Petitioner could not have encashed check payments because they
    were issued in the name of CCBPI. How these customers came to the
    knowledge and conclusion that petitioner did not remit their cash payments
    to CCBPI are beyond the Court. If there should be actual knowledge of
    petitioners embezzlement, it could only come from respondents; it is not for
    the CCBPI customers to prove, for the benefit of respondents, that petitioner
    embezzled their cash payments.

    You might also like